Subject: [babel] Benoit Claise's No Objection on charter-ietf-babel-00-06: (with COMMENT)

From: "Benoit Claise" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 05:58:29 -0700

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-babel-00-06: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-babel/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Editorial

Justification: 
- TR69 is a management protocol, not "network management"
- I tried to explain that data models are derived from the information
model

OLD:
- Address manageability of Babel by producing an informational model
for use by other network management such as the Broadband Forum
TR-069, and a YANG data module based on that information model.   The
former supports the case where the Customer-Premise Equipment (CPE)
is managed by the Service Provider (SP) as is done today.  The latter
YANG
model supports management of home gateway routers and is  consistent 
with the ongoing effort to use YANG data modules in the Routing Area. 
This work is required as part of moving Babel to Proposed Standard.

NEW:
- Address manageability of Babel by producing a Babel informational
model
to help provide guidance and derive the data models. To be consistent
with 
the ongoing effort to use YANG data modules in the Routing Area, a Babel

YANG data model to support management of home gateway routers is required

as part of moving Babel to Proposed Standard. This information model is 
useful as a common source of information for the case where the 
Customer-Premise Equipment (CPE) is managed by the Service 
Provider (SP) with the Broadband Forum TR-069 protocol and its associated

data model.

2.
I don't believe we need this text:
Thus, the Working Group will produce a Proposed Standard Babel
specification, including or paired with a suitable Proposed Standard
specification covering the security mechanism(s) for BABEL. It will
also produce a management information and data model for BABEL as a
Proposed Standard RFC. An applicability statement will be produced as
an Informational RFC.

However, as discussed during the retreat, the deliverables should clearly
mention 
the expected status: informational, proposed standard

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 16:46:46 -0400

Hi Benoit,

Thanks for your suggested text.  I've updated the charter (
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-babel/ so we're
at version 7) and milestones based on your suggestions as well as Alvaro's
and Suresh's.

Regards,
Alia